ALERT RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE - Consolidated Thread
- Thread starter danielboon
- Start date
Russia was fine in NOT taking any land both through the Minsk agreements and shortly after the conflict started agreed to pull all troops out - taking no land - with the Istanbul agreement - which Ukraine walked away from opting to settle the differences on the battlefield.
With 3 agreements violated and a hot war proxy for the US and 30 - 40 other nations - it appears the only way to put an end to this is taking over this former Soviet state or parts of it. After some 10+ years of a conflict in the Donbas - killing ethnic Russians - and refusing to settle at the diplomatic table - well you get it settled on the battlefield - Ukraine's choice. And in war - one side wins - they set the terms. 100% this is a problem Russia did not need or want but was forced to respond to.
As for expansion - that would be the US through NATO which has almost doubled since the Soviet Union dissolved > expanding toward Russia. Heck we still have our army of occupation in Germany since WW2 - we never removed our troops.
Currently it is NATO talking and getting their populations ready for war with Russia (and China) - publicly stating they are planning for it - As for Russia - zero talk of war with NATO - over and over again they have stated they have NO plans to attack NATO.
51% of Americans oppose military aid for Ukraine, poll shows
51% of Americans oppose military aid for Ukraine, poll shows
U.S. citizens remain split on whether to continue sending military support to Ukraine, with a razor-thin majority voicing opposition, according to a CBS/YouGov poll published on Nov. 25.
Good headline but the real meat is in the article:
Responding to a question on "how much priority should (Trump) put on developing policies and plans to try to limit aid to Ukraine," 33% deemed it to be a high priority, 36% a medium priority, and 31% said it was not a priority at all.
So we actually have 69% in favor of reducing or ending aid. And this is with nonstop MSM coverage of how we need to save/support Ukraine forever.
wait-n-see
Veteran Member
Spot on. The Ukraine war is 100% a result of US planning and duplicity since the end of the cold war.
@@@
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Explains How The Ukraine Russia War Started
Run time - 10:05
Jan 17, 2024
Yeppers, and I would be willing to bet that the receipt for "Seward's Folly" is in the National Archives or some other secure cubbyhole.
colonel holman
Veteran Member
Possibly another message from Putin, this one showing off firepower immune from western defenses. This time with near-zero public attention
Thanks for that correction, Abert, and you're absolutely right. In the quest to simplify for a larger spread of target audience, I admit to purposely oversimplifying - especially in the case of determining kinetic energy vs. the conversion of matter into energy. Be that as it may, I think the amount of destruction generated by a non-explosive kinetic strike at speed shocks most people. When I saw those closeup shots of that Russian missile strike, I knew that was exactly what we were seeing.
Good interview about the political impact of Russia's new weapon - but Pepe is concerned that nothing will change in the next 2 months - we are all being held hostage.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGEaL6EOaE
Pepe Escobar : Captain America’s Delusions.
Wow the Judge is on a roll - first Escobar on the Political aspects
Now Ritter on the military aspects of this new weapon and its impacts on US policy
NOTE: Like Escobar he is very worried about the next few weeks!
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mCWo9_hCU
Now Ritter on the military aspects of this new weapon and its impacts on US policy
NOTE: Like Escobar he is very worried about the next few weeks!
Scott Ritter : How Close to Nuclear War?
Cedar Lake
Connecticut Yankee
Question about Russia's new 'Oreshnik' missile system?
I've seen information/reports that the Dnipro factory was pulverized to dust, anywhere from 10 to fifty stories underground.
How deep can a kinetic weapon like this go?
blueinterceptor
Veteran Member
The Ukraine needs to have a free and open election. The people of the Crimea also need to have a free election. Let them decide their future. Fight or not.
Cedar Lake
Connecticut Yankee
Nice factual reply regarding ''the Russian Empire meme''
Points out Russia's need for a safe zone from Europe.
As Russia over and over again have stated they have NO plans to attack NATO.
Unless Russia is attacked first.
By NATO.
Mark D
Now running for Emperor.
Taking a look at the battlefields of the last couple centuries around the Globe: one would be forgiven for surmising that Western Europeans are the most violent people on the planet.
I honestly don't know but obviously it would depend on the hardness of the tungsten rods, the speed of impact and the material being penetrated. I would suspect, though, that the underground layers were of concrete which would be relatively secure against normal explosives but vulnerable to penetrating bunker-busters like these things would be.
Another interesting detail about this has been reported (even so much as directly mentioned by Putin in the subsequent Security Council meeting) but the significance appears to be missed by the chattering classes. That is the fact that this attack was essentially a real-time test of the system which - up until this attack was completed, at least - was considered experimental and not yet in production. (Although a number of 200 prototype missiles in inventory has been reported)
That's water under the bridge, though. Russia had enough confidence in the system that it was ordered into full production immediately. Unusual, to put it mildly.
While we're busily deporting illegal aliens, it would behoove us to exile the egregious warmongers among us, such as Lindsey Graham, John Bolton, Victoria Nuland and family, etc. etc. Send them to bankrupt Europe and let them instigate in the middle of all those centuries of bloody wars which have been started and fought there. It should be a choice - exile or put all the lamp posts in the country to work as gallows. As much as it goes against the grain, I don't wish to be included in history in the same mention as the Jacobins.
Game of Thrones writ large.
Last edited:
Jez
Veteran Member
I never said Ukraine had full control of said Nukes. But I thought I heard Ukraine had physical nukes and the treaty/agreement was to remove them from the territory. Either way I think we're arguing over split hairs. The point was there were once nukes in Ukraine, but there aren't any there now because of a treaty.
Cedar Lake
Connecticut Yankee
The Tree of Liberty is thirsty and needs to be watered with the blood of the Domestic Enemy. We Americans need to clean up our own country.
Last edited:
Cedar Lake
Connecticut Yankee
I was thinking about what the kinetic impact effect on the underground gas storage facilities (UGS) in the Lviv region would be. 400-1200 meters deep.
Tristan
TB Fanatic
Tristan
TB Fanatic
S2 Underground
@s2_underground
//The Wire//2200Z November 26, 2024//
//ROUTINE//
//BLUF: COMPLEXITIES AND NUANCE OF NATO PERSPECTIVES IN EUROPE CONTINUE CONTRIBUTING TO TENSIONS REMAINING HIGH. POSTURING EFFORTS AMONG ALL PARTIES CONTINUES AS WELL.//
-----BEGIN TEARLINE-----
-International Events-
Europe: Posturing efforts by NATO continue as before. Yesterday French media outlets reported that both France and Britain are allegedly considering the deployment of troops to Ukraine.
AC: While these claims have been made before in the past, the “unnamed sources” in this case cited the sideline diplomatic discussions during a recent Remembrance Day visit by PM Starmer to France. Two days ago, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot visited London, and made statements suggesting those earlier sideline discussions were probably true. More specifically, when mentioning the involvement of France and the U.K. more directly in the conflict he stated that “we do not discard any option”.
-----END TEARLINE-----
Analyst Comments: In classic form, many legacy media outlets have also amplified fearful messaging to the point of directly altering the statements of senior NATO officials. For instance, many pundits have claimed that NATO is considering a first strike against Russia. In reality, the quote that sparked this manipulative and misleading news headline came from Adm. Rob Bauer, who has spoken publicly twice over the past week with regards to the focus being on NATO’s military readiness at a time of global instability.
Adm. Bauer’s original quote is as follows: “The idea was we are a defensive alliance, so we will only sit and wait until we are attacked, and then when we are attacked, we will be able to shoot down the 'arrows' that come to us.” And that it would be “smarter to attack the archer, that is...Russia—if Russia attacks us. So you need to have a combination of deep precision (strikes) with which you can take out the weapons systems that are used to attack us”.
As Adm. Bauer is of Dutch nationality there is likely some level of the meaning of his quote being lost in translation. More specifically, Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov directly lied and stated that Bauer called for a “preemptive strike”, when Bauer never actually used the word “preemptive” in his original quote. Western media, not understanding what Bauer was trying to convey (and also being unwilling to watch the video recording of his talk themselves), probably heard these Russian claims and in their zeal to focus on the fearmongering potential, warped the original meaning of his message. Somewhat hilariously, western media has focused on this one quote (from an hour-long seminar and Q&A session)…while completely ignoring the larger message conveyed during the talk. Bauer’s short quote has been taken out of context; he was not advocating for a direct preemptive strike on Russia, but quite the opposite.
In fact, quite literally Bauer’s next sentence was “and because we are a defensive alliance, we will have to take the first blow. So Russia will start the conflict, because we are not going to attack Russia out of nothing.” Bauer’s overall remarks were exceptionally concerning, and very much indicative of NATO driving as fast as possible towards a direct military confrontation with Russia. In effect, this indicates that the media is right, but right for the wrong reasons. In this case, a bit of background knowledge must be understood to properly make decisions based on NATO’s perspective.
Much of the consternation around Bauer’s statements probably comes from a lack of understanding of how the nuts and bolts of a Large-Scale Combat Operation (LSCO) would actually work out if such a war were to break out between NATO and Russia. Additionally, this somewhat minor quote/incident is illustrative of long-standing NATO doctrine that requires more time to explain the nuance of. Bauer, who was responding to a question, probably was referring to the details of what specific things would occur if a state of war were to erupt between NATO and Russia. For instance, the following hypothetical situation might grant some clarity: If a missile site located in southern Russia were to conduct a missile strike on an air defense battery in Poland (but nowhere else), that would probably result in a state of war between Russia and NATO, with Russia throwing the first punch. At that point, once hostilities commence, NATO would be able to conduct strikes at an entirely different point along the front lines, before Russia could mobilize. At least, in theory. The Russian soldiers stationed in the far-flung regions of Russia’s eastern territories probably wouldn’t even know about Russia’s hypothetical strike in Poland until well after it happened. Neither would Russian troops along the border with Finland, who probably wouldn’t get word of hostilities commencing until NATO (seemingly) fired at them “first” from their perspective. A few minutes after that hypothetical Russian attack in Poland, missile strikes could be carried out from Finland, for instance, targeting the Russian naval bases in the White Sea. For those Russian soldiers and sailors stationed at those bases, it would indeed seem to be a “first strike” by NATO as they likely wouldn’t be aware of events in Poland for some time.
This would constitute a “deep strike” on a target in a part of Russia that previously did not start that first overall engagement (i.e. that hypothetical strike in Poland). Thus the need for NATO’s ability to strike targets deep inside Russia that might not have specifically had a hand in the hostilities opening in the first place. Once hostilities commence, any military target with a Russian flag is fair game. This is probably what Bauer was trying to communicate; the nuance of how wars are actually fought on the battlefield, within the context of NATO pledging to not fire the first shots…but if shots are fired, NATO would need the ability to carry the fight to places in Russia that were not involved in firing that first shot themselves. Wars are big, and conflicts almost never stay isolated in one place, where the shooting first started. This hypothetical situation helps us to understand what on the surface looks to be a contradictory statement, and shows that NATO can both be concerned with “deep-precision strikes” in certain locations, but also be committed to not starting the war outright. Once the war has begun, however, NATO likely wants to have the capability to strike targets along a different part of the front than where the war first started. This bit of nuanced context should provide some clarity as to both Bauer’s comments, and NATO’s overall mentality. NATO is very likely seeking to make aggressive moves, but concerning this exact idea (and only this exact idea), Bauer’s remarks are not only no departure from the norm, but also a decently good preparation to make considering NATO’s role in the world. This does not make NATO’s perspective right, moral, or even good. It merely explains the perspective that is often lost in an age of information manipulation.
Somewhat ironically, the initial quote as parroted by pundits was actually one of the more reasonable remarks he made during this talk. He directly denounced NATO having any hand in the war starting due to their actions, he directly stated that NATO didn’t expand eastward, and of course, spent many minutes advocating for the prolonging of the Ukrainian war. During this 1.25 hour seminar, roughly an hour’s worth involved framing NATO’s actions as morally superior. Somehow Bauer also managed to work in lies about the war in the Middle East to a talk on Ukraine, repeating known and confirmed fabrications of details of that war. But the insinuation that this specific headline making the rounds was an escalatory statement by itself is disingenuous at best.
Analyst: S2A1
//END REPORT//
Runtime 6:57
View: https://youtu.be/Ag1brOmEdNw
@s2_underground
//The Wire//2200Z November 26, 2024//
//ROUTINE//
//BLUF: COMPLEXITIES AND NUANCE OF NATO PERSPECTIVES IN EUROPE CONTINUE CONTRIBUTING TO TENSIONS REMAINING HIGH. POSTURING EFFORTS AMONG ALL PARTIES CONTINUES AS WELL.//
-----BEGIN TEARLINE-----
-International Events-
Europe: Posturing efforts by NATO continue as before. Yesterday French media outlets reported that both France and Britain are allegedly considering the deployment of troops to Ukraine.
AC: While these claims have been made before in the past, the “unnamed sources” in this case cited the sideline diplomatic discussions during a recent Remembrance Day visit by PM Starmer to France. Two days ago, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot visited London, and made statements suggesting those earlier sideline discussions were probably true. More specifically, when mentioning the involvement of France and the U.K. more directly in the conflict he stated that “we do not discard any option”.
-----END TEARLINE-----
Analyst Comments: In classic form, many legacy media outlets have also amplified fearful messaging to the point of directly altering the statements of senior NATO officials. For instance, many pundits have claimed that NATO is considering a first strike against Russia. In reality, the quote that sparked this manipulative and misleading news headline came from Adm. Rob Bauer, who has spoken publicly twice over the past week with regards to the focus being on NATO’s military readiness at a time of global instability.
Adm. Bauer’s original quote is as follows: “The idea was we are a defensive alliance, so we will only sit and wait until we are attacked, and then when we are attacked, we will be able to shoot down the 'arrows' that come to us.” And that it would be “smarter to attack the archer, that is...Russia—if Russia attacks us. So you need to have a combination of deep precision (strikes) with which you can take out the weapons systems that are used to attack us”.
As Adm. Bauer is of Dutch nationality there is likely some level of the meaning of his quote being lost in translation. More specifically, Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov directly lied and stated that Bauer called for a “preemptive strike”, when Bauer never actually used the word “preemptive” in his original quote. Western media, not understanding what Bauer was trying to convey (and also being unwilling to watch the video recording of his talk themselves), probably heard these Russian claims and in their zeal to focus on the fearmongering potential, warped the original meaning of his message. Somewhat hilariously, western media has focused on this one quote (from an hour-long seminar and Q&A session)…while completely ignoring the larger message conveyed during the talk. Bauer’s short quote has been taken out of context; he was not advocating for a direct preemptive strike on Russia, but quite the opposite.
In fact, quite literally Bauer’s next sentence was “and because we are a defensive alliance, we will have to take the first blow. So Russia will start the conflict, because we are not going to attack Russia out of nothing.” Bauer’s overall remarks were exceptionally concerning, and very much indicative of NATO driving as fast as possible towards a direct military confrontation with Russia. In effect, this indicates that the media is right, but right for the wrong reasons. In this case, a bit of background knowledge must be understood to properly make decisions based on NATO’s perspective.
Much of the consternation around Bauer’s statements probably comes from a lack of understanding of how the nuts and bolts of a Large-Scale Combat Operation (LSCO) would actually work out if such a war were to break out between NATO and Russia. Additionally, this somewhat minor quote/incident is illustrative of long-standing NATO doctrine that requires more time to explain the nuance of. Bauer, who was responding to a question, probably was referring to the details of what specific things would occur if a state of war were to erupt between NATO and Russia. For instance, the following hypothetical situation might grant some clarity: If a missile site located in southern Russia were to conduct a missile strike on an air defense battery in Poland (but nowhere else), that would probably result in a state of war between Russia and NATO, with Russia throwing the first punch. At that point, once hostilities commence, NATO would be able to conduct strikes at an entirely different point along the front lines, before Russia could mobilize. At least, in theory. The Russian soldiers stationed in the far-flung regions of Russia’s eastern territories probably wouldn’t even know about Russia’s hypothetical strike in Poland until well after it happened. Neither would Russian troops along the border with Finland, who probably wouldn’t get word of hostilities commencing until NATO (seemingly) fired at them “first” from their perspective. A few minutes after that hypothetical Russian attack in Poland, missile strikes could be carried out from Finland, for instance, targeting the Russian naval bases in the White Sea. For those Russian soldiers and sailors stationed at those bases, it would indeed seem to be a “first strike” by NATO as they likely wouldn’t be aware of events in Poland for some time.
This would constitute a “deep strike” on a target in a part of Russia that previously did not start that first overall engagement (i.e. that hypothetical strike in Poland). Thus the need for NATO’s ability to strike targets deep inside Russia that might not have specifically had a hand in the hostilities opening in the first place. Once hostilities commence, any military target with a Russian flag is fair game. This is probably what Bauer was trying to communicate; the nuance of how wars are actually fought on the battlefield, within the context of NATO pledging to not fire the first shots…but if shots are fired, NATO would need the ability to carry the fight to places in Russia that were not involved in firing that first shot themselves. Wars are big, and conflicts almost never stay isolated in one place, where the shooting first started. This hypothetical situation helps us to understand what on the surface looks to be a contradictory statement, and shows that NATO can both be concerned with “deep-precision strikes” in certain locations, but also be committed to not starting the war outright. Once the war has begun, however, NATO likely wants to have the capability to strike targets along a different part of the front than where the war first started. This bit of nuanced context should provide some clarity as to both Bauer’s comments, and NATO’s overall mentality. NATO is very likely seeking to make aggressive moves, but concerning this exact idea (and only this exact idea), Bauer’s remarks are not only no departure from the norm, but also a decently good preparation to make considering NATO’s role in the world. This does not make NATO’s perspective right, moral, or even good. It merely explains the perspective that is often lost in an age of information manipulation.
Somewhat ironically, the initial quote as parroted by pundits was actually one of the more reasonable remarks he made during this talk. He directly denounced NATO having any hand in the war starting due to their actions, he directly stated that NATO didn’t expand eastward, and of course, spent many minutes advocating for the prolonging of the Ukrainian war. During this 1.25 hour seminar, roughly an hour’s worth involved framing NATO’s actions as morally superior. Somehow Bauer also managed to work in lies about the war in the Middle East to a talk on Ukraine, repeating known and confirmed fabrications of details of that war. But the insinuation that this specific headline making the rounds was an escalatory statement by itself is disingenuous at best.
Analyst: S2A1
//END REPORT//
Runtime 6:57
The Wire - November 26, 2024
My initial thought about that: It would be devastating even if the gas cap wasn't penetrated due to the inability to shut off the flow because of the surface destruction caused by the strike. I'm talking about wells, compressor stations, gas processing facilities, pipelines, etc. Think of what it looked like when the Nordstream pipelines were blown up.
The only place I've experienced something like that was the GHX-1 (Gas Handling Expansion) up in Prudhoe Bay. The field production rate was topped out in the early 90s, so the operators (Arco, BP & Exxon) had us drill 10 new injection wells into the gas cap and installed some monster GE Frame 7 compressors to handle more gas, repressurize the field and thereby raise the production. It was interesting - the GHX-1 wells were deeper than 400-1200m though.
Speaking of Nordstream, have you read that some unnamed American operator is asking for the right to buy it and fix it? (3 of the 4 pipelines are severed but the 4th one is still intact). I think Gazprom is the owner of that pipeline system - might be real interesting to see if El Presidente Trump would allow it. I don't think Biden would because there's no money in it for his crime family, and besides, he was one of the ones behind blowing it up and taking down Europe's (especially Germany's) economy.
And what in the world is the reason behind the Ukrainian maniacs not allowing any gas to cross Ukraine's pipelines when the present contracts expire? All they're actually doing is cutting off a big source of income from the gas transit fees they've been getting all along.
Cedar Lake
Connecticut Yankee
Thanks for the response.
So up to a BCM (Billion Cubic Meters) of the EU's stored natural gas for 2025 would be released. A catastrophe.
''What's the reason behind the Ukrainian maniacs not allowing any gas to cross Ukraine's pipelines when the present contracts expire Dec 2024?''
Certainly will have a big negative effect on some European nations (Austria) and all of the EU economy.
von Koehler
Has No Life - Lives on TB
13:45 minutes
The Russian Ruble continues to slide, reflecting a weakening economy and rising inflation.
Knoxville's Joker
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Sounds like a market rebound due to trump
We have gone over this a dozen times - the exchange rate is meaningless - especially with a currency that is banned from being used in Western trade (Sanctions) - there is no market for it.
von Koehler
Has No Life - Lives on TB
,
The Russian Ruble was sinking before Trump was elected.
Because of Russian misinformation, the market value of the Ruble is the only honest gauge of how the Russian economy is doing.
Basic econ 101.
Once AGAIN - you really need to take even a basic course in Economics!
How The New Russian Missiles Are Changing The Game
Excellent article in MoA - and related comments.Trump picks retired Gen. Keith Kellogg for Ukraine envoy
Trump picks retired Gen. Keith Kellogg for Ukraine envoy
WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump named retired Gen. Keith Kellogg as his Ukraine war envoy Wednesday — putting the longtime adviser in charge of helping end the nearly three-year Russian i…
nypost.com
Looks like Trump is picking someone that is in line with what appears to be his plan - a NK/SK type of solution - good luck selling that to Russia.
“Specifically, it would mean a formal U.S. policy to seek a cease-fire and negotiated settlement of the Ukraine conflict. The United States would continue to arm Ukraine and strengthen its defenses to ensure Russia will make no further advances and will not attack again after a cease-fire or peace agreement.
“Future American military aid, however, will require Ukraine to participate in peace talks with Russia,” the paper said.
Yet another sucky war hawk appointment. Trump's picks have gone downhill fast. Instead of worrying about delusional Ukrainians, Trump needs to focus on what Russia (Putin and Lavrov specifically) will believe from the US.
I am beginning to think these appointments will just muddy the water and it'll take President Trump's direct interaction (face-to-face) with President Putin to sort this out. A DMZ won't do it.
wait-n-see
Veteran Member
Trump picks retired Gen. Keith Kellogg for Ukraine envoy
Trump picks retired Gen. Keith Kellogg for Ukraine envoy
WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump named retired Gen. Keith Kellogg as his Ukraine war envoy Wednesday — putting the longtime adviser in charge of helping end the nearly three-year Russian i…
Looks like Trump is picking someone that is in line with what appears to be his plan - a NK/SK type of solution - good luck selling that to Russia.
“Specifically, it would mean a formal U.S. policy to seek a cease-fire and negotiated settlement of the Ukraine conflict. The United States would continue to arm Ukraine and strengthen its defenses to ensure Russia will make no further advances and will not attack again after a cease-fire or peace agreement.
“Future American military aid, however, will require Ukraine to participate in peace talks with Russia,” the paper said.
Looks like Trump is going to learn the hard way that Putin is not going to fall for the western BS again.
We may still get that WWIII after all, but delayed till next year.
Really doubt that it is going to be 4 years without starting a new war in Trump's 2nd term.
This is exactly the point Scott Ritter made at the end of his interview with the Judge (posted a few above).
That he is appointing Anti-Russian / war hawks- granted not a bad as Mike Pompeo who was pushing for $500 BILLION in new aid but still people like Sebastian Gorka who is EVEN more Anti-Russian than just about anyone out there.
Well it could be Good Cop vs Bad Cop for negotiations - we can do this the easy way (give up) or the hard way.
What makes this almost impossible to "game out" is that Ukraine effectively is only a minor factor in this world wide battle for total control. Yes it is where the battle has gone HOT but Trump has also said he plans to do whatever is necessary to keep the US Dollar as the ONLY currency for international trade (with the US naturally in total control) He plans to kill BRICS. We are in a World War and have been for awhile - only question is how it will play out in the end.
Ritter thinks Trump's appointments point to things getting a lot hotter. Now We Wait
That's all true - especially the part about Gorka being such a Russophobe and warmongers like Pompeo and Graham being 30 years out of date with their mindsets - which doesn't portend well for future dealings and final closure of this mess and friendly, neighborly relations being accomplished. Ukraine is really just a pawn which its owners have sold off for their personal enrichments and laundering (see "Biden" for details), but the truth is that Ukraine is a mind over matter thing. They don't matter and nations are rapidly coming to the conclusion that nobody really minds.
Another reality is that BRICS is growing and getting stronger. The US doesn't have to join and would probably be rejected if it applied, but the fact of the matter is that the end of the dollar hegemony is inexorably in sight. BRICS isn't going anywhere but up. The US can have bilateral dealings with any country it wishes, including Russia, but the days of bullying are long past, hopefully.
The key to resolving this lies, quite frankly, with how much Russia is willing to accede. I don't think at this point that they'll be willing to accept anything but total capitulation but Zelensky is too much a drugged-out moron to understand that he's got to accept whatever is offered. He is so used to getting his way from foolish benefactor nations that he's departed from reality. I don't think history was something he studied in dancing school.
Multipolarity is the theme of the future and besides the denial of the US about it all, the EU is upset about it because it envisioned itself as the new king of the hill, displacing the US. Nobody even envisioned something like BRICS being a wrench stuck in the spokes, but especially as Russia being the driving force behind the rise of BRICS.
That's got to be the main hope of the military-industrial complex. On reflection, Eisenhower sure nailed that one. (He also nailed the freeway system too, but isn't as widely known for that)
Well in an agreement you always have to have two sides agree - Trump's a NK/SK solution.
Russia:
essanews.com
On Tuesday, Sergey Naryshkin, the director of the Foreign Intelligence Service (SWR), stated that Russia is open to negotiations but added that Moscow "categorically rejects" any "freezing" of the current front line or the creation of a demilitarized zone.
The Kremlin wants Ukraine's "total capitulation"
"Naryshkin alleged that the 'elimination' of the reasons that 'caused' Russia to launch its full-scale invasion of Ukraine is the only way to ensure peace — demonstrating that Russia continues to uncompromisingly demand Ukraine's full capitulation," according to the report.
So much for Plan A !
Russia:
Kremlin rejects compromises, demands total Ukraine surrender
Kremlin rejects compromises, demands total Ukraine surrender
Russian high-ranking officials indicate that the Kremlin is not seeking compromises in the war against Ukraine, as repo…
essanews.com
On Tuesday, Sergey Naryshkin, the director of the Foreign Intelligence Service (SWR), stated that Russia is open to negotiations but added that Moscow "categorically rejects" any "freezing" of the current front line or the creation of a demilitarized zone.
The Kremlin wants Ukraine's "total capitulation"
"Naryshkin alleged that the 'elimination' of the reasons that 'caused' Russia to launch its full-scale invasion of Ukraine is the only way to ensure peace — demonstrating that Russia continues to uncompromisingly demand Ukraine's full capitulation," according to the report.
So much for Plan A !